Sigma Flashcards

Under the Sigma framework, when an officer encounters a subject who has made a veiled threat but explicitly denies any intent to harm, which assessment principle takes precedence in determining the subject's threat level?

Answer: Behavioral indicators and pathway behaviors are weighted more heavily than stated intent or denial

Sigma's core principle distinguishes between 'making a threat' and 'posing a threat.' Behavioral indicators — such as grievance escalation, target research, and preparatory actions — are more predictive of targeted violence than what a subject claims. Denial of intent does not negate observable pathway behaviors, and assessors are trained to weight demonstrated conduct over self-reporting.

A Sigma threat assessment reveals that a subject has a longstanding grievance, has researched a target's routine, but has made no direct communications to that target. Which Sigma pathway stage BEST describes this subject?

Answer: Preparation — the subject has taken concrete pre-attack planning steps

Researching a target's routine constitutes concrete preparatory behavior under Sigma's pathway model, placing the subject in the Preparation stage. This is distinct from mere Ideation (abstract grievance) or Probing (testing defenses). The absence of direct communications does not reduce the stage — target surveillance is itself a preparation activity that elevates risk.

In a Sigma multi-agency threat assessment, a community partner (e.g., a mental health case manager) provides information suggesting the subject is in crisis but requests it remain confidential to preserve therapeutic rapport. How should the lead assessor handle this under Sigma principles?

Answer: Apply a duty-to-warn analysis and integrate the information into the assessment, noting source sensitivity in the file

Sigma operates within existing privacy and duty-to-warn legislation, not outside it. A lead assessor must weigh the public safety obligation against the confidentiality concern, apply applicable duty-to-warn or duty-to-protect thresholds, and integrate the information with appropriate source protection notations. Blanket exclusion or blanket disclosure both represent failures of the balanced approach Sigma requires.

Which of the following scenarios MOST accurately illustrates a 'leakage' indicator under Sigma, and why does it carry elevated weight in an assessment?

Answer: A subject tells a peer that they 'know how to deal with' a supervisor who wronged them; leakage is weighted because pre-attack communication to third parties is a consistent finding in targeted violence research

Leakage is defined in Sigma as the communication of an attack plan or intent to a third party — not the target — prior to the event. Research on targeted violence consistently shows that attackers often 'leak' their plans to peers, family, or online communities. This is weighted heavily precisely because it is a pre-attack indicator that does not require a direct threat to the target, and it provides an intervention window.

A Sigma case management plan for a subject assessed at moderate risk is reviewed six months later. The subject has stabilized employment, re-established family contact, and stopped posting grievance content online. Under Sigma's dynamic risk model, the MOST appropriate response is:

Answer: Formally reassess using current information, potentially downgrading the threat level while retaining the file with a monitoring trigger

Sigma uses a dynamic risk model — threat levels are not static and must be formally reassessed as circumstances change. Positive behavioral changes (protective factors) can legitimately reduce risk classification. However, closing a file outright without a formal reassessment process is inappropriate; the correct practice is a documented re-evaluation with the updated information, a revised classification, and retention of the file with defined trigger conditions for re-escalation.

Under Sigma, the concept of 'inhibitors' refers to factors that may reduce the likelihood of a subject acting on a threat. Which of the following would be INCORRECTLY classified as an inhibitor by a trained Sigma assessor?

Answer: The subject has recently experienced a significant personal loss, such as the death of a close family member

A recent significant personal loss is NOT an inhibitor — it is a potential stressor that may actually destabilize a subject and accelerate pathway behaviors. Sigma assessors are trained to distinguish inhibitors (factors that reduce motivation or capacity for violence) from stressors (events that may increase risk). Relocation of a target, strong moral/religious prohibitions, and legal consequences that restrict access to means are genuine inhibitors; a major loss is a risk-elevating life event.